Why did Spielberg stop short of Star Date 5906.4?
Posted on 11/18/2012 11:43:36 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
With only a limited theatrical release last week, Steven Spielberg’s latest work of imaginative fiction is scheduled for wide release today. I know Hollywood plays fast and loose with history, but when they go out of their way to get the wallpaper in Lincoln’s office exactly right, and use a recording of his actual watch as the sound effect for his movie watch, but pay little deference to his actual statements or opinions… something must be said.
People are seriously calling the Lincoln movie a “much needed civics lesson.” In reality it’s essentially a 2.5 hour courtroom drama about slavery that never happened. Reviews everywhere celebrate the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role, and he should be celebrated. He stunningly and artfully brought the fictional character of our grade school textbooks to life.
The film focuses entirely on the final years of Lincoln’s life, from the tail end of the war to his inevitable assassination (spoiler alert). Lincoln and his dagger-tongued Cabinet bicker about how to end the war and slavery at the same time. The Confederates want to negotiate a peace, and so does Lincoln, but see they’ve just got to end slavery before the war ends, not after… because… well no reason really.
Starting the story at the end allows the writers to conveniently ignore the uncomfortable history that lead up to it. Sort of how “Passion of the Christ” allowed Mel Gibson to ignore anything Jesus actually taught. Here’s some of what was suspiciously left out.
Before the movie began Lincoln imposed a blockade on Southern ports with no declaration of war from Congress. He suspended habeas corpus, which is the protection against unlawful imprisonment. When a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court called this unconstitutional Lincoln signed his own arrest warrant for the Justice...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The Lincoln Movie is Propaganda
so that means it’s the Oscar winner this year
>>The film focuses entirely on the final years of Lincoln’s life, from the tail end of the war to his inevitable assassination (spoiler alert).<<
Lincoln was assassinated???? Didn’t see that one comin!
"Final years of Lincoln's life?" That time frame (end of war to assassination) would consist of a few weeks.
“Lincoln was assassinated????”
Don’t they teach the shot missed.... ;-)
Cloud Atlas is Pro-Homosexual, Anti-Oil, it too will be in the running for the Oscar.
I gather this is by Davi Barker, the Muslim activist, rather than David Barker, the anti-Muslim activist? Maybe they're the same guy.
does he kill any vampires in this one?
If I did in-depth research on every author before I posted a thread, I might do 5 a month.
“so that means it’s the Oscar winner this year”
Theeeeerrre ya go. It isn’t about the truth, it is about fame and fortune for Hollywierd.
The left truly wants to destroy the icons of this country. It’s about destroying the patriotism and reverence that Americans once had for their country, and replacing it with worship of the gods of liberalism.
This article is a disgusting mixture of left wing and pro confederacy propaganda.
Anyone who knows the Lincoln and Civil War history will recognize all the best known Lincoln quotes- misused again and again.
I’ll just pick one of the best known leftist distortions- that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves because it only applied to the states still in rebellion.
Sure, if one overlooks the fact an enormous Union Army was in all out war with the South, was not going to stop until every inch of the South was repatriated, and that meant all the slaves in the entire South would be-and gee- WERE FREED! Yes Lincoln exempted the parts of the South then converted to the Union side, but the idea that slavery would survive the war in those tiny areas would have been a fantasy.
So yes, Lincoln freed all the slaves, by the EP and most importantly by war.
Many years ago in our history class we were taught the primary reason for the war between the states was the issue of “states rights”.
And boo hoo, nasty Lincoln attacked the poor Confederacy, and all those nice guys did was split the USA in two so as to protect that wonderful institution of slavery. /s
The author of this article is an idiot as well as an A hole.
Yes, Lincoln walked a fine line as he was in a very different time and was being accused of wanting intermarriage, etc. However, if one understands Lincoln’s history, they know for example that the South seceded BECAUSE Lincoln was elected, because he was going to oppose slavery in new states, which meant the South would be outvoted in Congress and slavery would be doomed.
Slavery was ended in all the states in rebellion by reason of the Emancipation Proclamation. (Just to tidy things up, loyalist state governments organized in the occupied parts of Virginia, Louisiana and elsewhere freed the slaves in those places.)
The Emancipation Proclamation provided for the freeing of all slaves with compensation to owners in the loyal areas, if the military age men among them joined the Union Army. (The usual signing bonus was paid to the master.) As a practical matter, this provision ended slavery in the loyal areas, as well as the rebellious areas.
As for tidying things up in the loyal areas:
Slavery was ended in the District of Columbia, a territory of the U.S., by Act of Congress.
Slavery was ended in Missouri (a Union slave state) by reason of General John C. Fremont, as Commander of the Army of the West, when he ended the so-called true by which that state was to be neutral, and installed a loyalist state government, and that state government ended slavery. Lincoln was aghast at this act (although he would himself invoke military necessity in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation), and relieved Fremont. Fremont was later appointed Commander of the Army in West Virginia, and did well - for a Union man - against a certain Southern general in that place. You may have heard about this fellow, General Stonewall Jackson (this was before he got his nickname).
Slavery was ended in Kentucky (another a Union slave state) by reason of an amendment to the state Constitution, passed by the necessary majorities in each chamber of the state legislature.
Slavery was ended in Maryland (another Union slave state) similarly by reason of an amendment to the state Constitution. In this case, ratified by the people by popular vote, the absentee military votes being crucial. (Whenever I think of the absentee military vote, I think about these votes. The absentee military votes are very precious to me.)
The only place I don’t know about is Delaware. But, this Union slave state only had 500 slaves to begin with. I just suppose each of them was freed via one or another expedient, thus making the issue moot. I suppose one day, I’ll nail this one down.
To my satisfaction, the 13th Amendment - which is the focus of the movie - did not free one single person from slavery. It’s purpose was and remains to establish a Constitutional principle. In fact, that principle allows slavery (we would say ‘servitude’ so as to distinguish it from American Negro Slavery), in the case of debtors in default and criminals, which is quite traditional in history.
It is a slander on white people to not recognize that we did what was right by our fellow human beings when we had the opportunity. But, a fair presentation of history is not the agenda of the other side. Presenting the good along with the bad, and letting the reader judge for himself, that’s not it. Showing that all of us are sinners and yet capable of rising above sin. Showing that there are many heroes, most of whom are not named in the history books. Showing that people are often torn between competing loyalties.
There are some really good things in this movie, but it is not the movie I would have made. Civil Wars just don’t really support the easy narrative that some of us are holy and others of us evil. Civil Wars are often grounded in making differences into moral imperatives as opposed to differences about which we might seek to resolve either through bargaining or by appeal to the humanity of others.
Well that's because it was. Nobody in the North was going to volunteer to fight the war to free the slaves. After they became conscripts, the emancipation proclamation came out. Some coincidence. Oh did I mention the draft riots that ensued? Maybe Producer Schpielturd failed to read about that.
Hope your mom is doing better.
Why did Spielberg stop short of Star Date 5906.4?
A coworker went to see it in the Peoples Republic of Montgomery County MD, where no lunatic leftwing idea is considered untenable. She recounted that the audience applauded and cheered at the conclusion of the movie, which told me it was nothing more that Marxist historical revisionism
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.